Countries that accept refugees must confiscate their valuables worth more than €1500.

Pros

Cons

Taking away valuables from refugees is necessary for the state to generate easy and fast income.

While native citizens have been paying taxes in the country for their whole life, the new arriving refugees have not. It is unlikely that any refugees can contribute an amount commensurate with what a citizen of their age would have contributed over a lifetime, so this is the next best possible way for them to contribute fairly to the services they will access.

It prevents refugees who can afford to pay their part of the expenditures of the receiving state from enjoying social benefits without contributing.

Wealth comes from the economy of the society in which that wealth is earned. Valuables that refugees bring with them should be repatriated to their country of origin.

This strategy is fair for Denmark since they take very good care of the refugees they accept, they are selective and work hard to integrate refugees into their society.

This strategy would work as deterrence and help keep refugees out.

This would show that refugees have something to give in return, which would be good for their reputation.

Taking refugee's valuables makes their integration more difficult.

Exercising the right to asylum must not be tied to expenses.

Confiscating valuables from refugees is a very aggressive measure and not easily compatible with a constitutional state and/or free market economy. There must be less absolutist ways to have refugees contribute to the state.

Implementing such policies renders seeking refuge in countries with this policy more attractive to impoverished refugees than wealthy ones. These refugees are more likely to be uneducated ones, because the well-educated ones will look for countries where they can keep their money.

Confiscating refugees' valuables will lead to a bad international reputation as can be seen in recent articles recentarticlesaboutDenmark's new bill.

One of the main duties of a modern democratic state is to provide and protect the right of property. The suggested confiscation violates that important right.

The EU is wealthy enough to host refugees without taking away their posessions.

It is at least optically concerning that this was never something contemplated in the various times that white European people were a significant proportion of global refugees. The decision to apply this policy now, but not, for example, to refugees fleeing World War II suggests an unwillingness to treat refugees from African, Middle-Eastern and Asian backgrounds fairly.

Taking valuables from refugees puts them at a disadvantage. Such valuables can be sold or borrowed in order to become independant.